Who is Scared of Warmth and Moisture?

A scheming cabal of green bureaucrats, academics and corporate speculators is trying to scare us into a mess of energy taxes, subsidies and rationing in order to combat what they call “catastrophic man-made global warming”.

Climate alarmists speculate that if the level of harmless carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is doubled (which may or may not happen in a century or so), world temperature may be one or two degrees warmer than it would have otherwise been.

The proposition that this mild warming, if it occurs, would be “catastrophic” is so laughable that they had to invent “positive feedbacks” to multiply this scare to maybe six degrees in a century. However the emerging evidence, and Earth’s past history, show that feedbacks are negative – the vast oceans tend to stabilise warming temperatures so that even the two degree forecast is probably excessive.

In many places in Australia, temperature rises about sixteen degrees from dawn to mid-afternoon – over say eight hours, or two degrees per hour. So people who can cope with a daily warming of 16 degrees over 8 hours are supposed to panic about a fudged forecast of two degrees over a century – about the warming we feel in just one hour every morning. Even less “frightening” is the less than one degree of warming that has occurred over the last 200 years.

Why worry about warming anyhow?

The world has never suffered “runaway global warming” even when carbon dioxide levels were far above those of today. But it does suffer regular ice ages. It is not warmth that causes hardship and mass extinctions – it is the deathly grip of ice. The Little Ice Age that ended just 150 years ago was a time of failed crops, abandoned farms, advancing glaciers and famines. Even in modern times, there are more deaths caused by winter cold snaps than by summer heat waves. And those people free to move (tourists and retirees) always flock to warm places like Florida, Bali and the Riviera, not to frigid climes like Siberia, Alaska or Antarctica.

Moreover, more warmth always causes extra evaporation from lakes and oceans. What goes up, must form clouds and come down somewhere as extra precipitation. And if there is more carbon dioxide and water in the atmosphere, plants will grow better. Why do we need carbon taxes and ration cards to protect us from a warm moist climate with more luxuriant plant life?

The whole climate scam is just a smoke screen to hide the UN inspired grab for more taxes and more power.

I think it is more than that. The extraterritorial, hard to disprove, environmental issue gives an excuse to push systems thinking/systems dynamics that are thinly masked political theories as climate modelling and in the classroom. It is no accident to read that it is not enough to use systems modelling in the hard science classes. Systems thinking/modelling must be treated as a social science. That means it is control over people and their behavior and their economic decisions that are the real target.

Following up on a classroom lead took me to the 2005 European Conference of System Science which announced that we in the West are moving away from the science of the Enlightenment to the Chinese view that is best described as experience science. And that experience science pushes the unity of the natural and human sciences. That’s the sort of views Uncle Karl and Uncle Vladimir had and it is the antithesis of human freedom to be deemed by your government and its National Academy of Sciences to be a socio-technical sub-system of the broader ecosystem. So much of this AGW modelling like socio-cultural and systems thinking/systems dynamics in K-12 education is not science or pedagogy in any sense we have historically recognized as valid.http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/who-granted-permission-to-spearhead-societal-evolution-to-a-global-cooperative-consciousness/ and Bela Banathy’s Nine Dimensions shows you there really is no domain of life being left out. They want to redesign and control it all. Even though most of what is targeted was never intentionally designed in the first place. It evolved and only survived if it worked even if no one knew why exactly.

And the UN is pushing this as part of the implementation of the DeLors report from the mid-90s so this is international.

Any possible warming is primarily in nighttime temperatures anyway, so who really cares? Really. I’ve always wished for more tolerate frigid nights most of the year, more like five or ten degrees further south, those nights would be fantastic! More moisture? That wouldn’t hurt either.

Guess those of us living in the north of Australia (in my case Townsville) and enjoy 24c minimums too 36 to 38C maximums day with upwards of 90%rh on a constant basis for 4 months at a time are just freaks then.

The important point to remember is there is nothing the OECD can do about reducing co2 emissions.http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=90&pid=44&aid=8&cid=CG6,CG5,&syid=1990&eyid=2010&unit=MMTCD
Just to remind everyone of a few pesky facts—- in 1990 the total human emission of co2 p.a was 21.6 bn tonnes, 11.6 from OECD and 10 from non OECD
The latest numbers for 2010 are 31.8 bn tonnes p.a , 18.8 bn tonnes for non OECD and 13 bn tonnes for OECD.
At the end of 2012 the non OECD alone probably will equal total world emissions of just 22 years ago in 1990.
Of course China, India etc have another billion and a half people to be lifted out of poverty, so there is zero we can do to stop the increase in co2 emissions at all.
This is very simple Kindy maths that a competent 5 year old can understand, so why have we got such stupid donkeys running our countries?

Well in the Chico, Ca, USA area right now We can see lows in the morning of 60 – 61 and highs in the upper 90’s. That gives a swing of 30 – 40 degrees in a single day. Which is one of the many reasons I’ve never bought into the catastrophic angle.

That and no one can tell me what the normal temperature of the earth is. I mean if we are warming off of a normal we must know what that normal is right? Oh wait we don’t need to know it since the catastrophic consequences will be so evil.

So people who can cope with a daily warming of 16 degrees over 8 hours are supposed to panic about a fudged forecast of two degrees over a century –
——-
Sure, but the same amount of fall in average temperatures would bring on the ice age. Saying a rise of that amount has no effect is not physically consistent.

Moreover, more warmth always causes extra evaporation from lakes and oceans. What goes up, must form clouds and come down somewhere as extra precipitation.
———
Sure, but where does it come down? The Australian economy has just recovered from a series of massive floods in one year. The floods took 2% off the GDP.

The celebration of hope, climate rationalism and traditional science so evident on this site is the breathe of life, the light of freedom and (anecdotal) the most effective anti-depressant I have experienced. The controlling catastrophists are cultivating a double dose of depression for themselves. Not only will they bear witness to their expensive and arrogant failure to control the climate, they will suffer the existential failure of their ‘control’ delusion. For many, perhaps this could be their ‘On the road to Damascus’ moment. For others, they will merely redouble their efforts to control the uncontrollable, their focus shifting elsewhere.

One problem is that being pushed inexorably back from a position of extreme Ideology, the rest of us breathe a sigh of relief as a less extreme position is adopted. The extreme position of CAGW is morphing into politically correct ‘human induced climate change’, which unfortunately includes all aspects of climate and all aspects of human activity. Given the proclivity of post-normal science to embrace an evidence free precautionary principle, the recipe for political intervention by the Ministry-of-We-Know-Best remains as motivated as ever.

The whole climate scam is just a smoke screen to hide the UN inspired grab for more taxes and more power.
————-
Utter BS. The trend under all governments, both left and right, over the last 25 years has been reduced taxes.

What will likely happen is that the new schemes will be such utter failures that there will be a backlash. For example, when we start to read headlines such as, “Greek Electrical System Faces Collapse,” then we know people are starting to rethink. The warm-and-fuzzy sounding ideas have not resulted in a warm-and-fuzzy reality, but rather a cold-and-thorny one.

The word for this backlash, if you are a true leftist, is “counter-revolution.” Rather than seeing ideas were stupid to start with, and facing failure, the blame is laid on “counter-revolutionary elements.” Then, if you retain the political clout, those “counter-revolutionary elements” must be “purged.” They are the scape-goats who get the blame for your own failure.

All this does is prolong the failure. Prolong the human misery. Prolong the ignorance.

As long as the ”Skeptics” confuse big / small climatic changes with the phony GLOBAL warmings – they are guilty as hell… the honest public cops the bill. More H2O +CO2 in the air = milder climate, not global warming!!! Milder climate is: cooler days / warmer nights. Clear sky = hotter days / colder nights: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/water-vapor/

Utter BS……. from Lazy Teenager….
I was tempted to comment until I realized that you probably ARE a lazy teenager and haven’t yet had some life experiences that mature most people. Come back after you have lived some and then report, for now, adults are trying to have a conversation…. :)…..

Viv, Viv, Viv darling. You just don’t understand cup cakes. It’s about selling an idea (ideology). This is what it’s all about. Ignore suicidal greenhouse growers pumping in 1,000 ppm into their cherished greenhouses and crops. Ignore excess winter deaths in the UK. Ignore the Roman Warm Period when empires flourished. Ignore the opportunist Eric the Red in Greenland. Once you have learned to ignore (dare I say deny???) these things then the science is settled and we can carry on establishing the new Harold Camingesque religion. It’s all about that rapture moment.

That was a low blow, Viv, bringing in Bali. You KNOW they like to party in Bali! 50,000 of ‘em (do I remember that right? seems impossible) – by jet plane. If there were any who arrived by sailboat, I don’t recall hearing of it. Do you suppose, just maybe, that they don’t believe the stories they’re tellin’?

@Lazy
“Sure, but where does it come down? The Australian economy has just recovered from a series of massive floods in one year. The floods took 2% off the GDP.:

Gees you need to do some research before you spout off. These storms/floods occur pretty regularly (on approximately a 40 year cycle in Australia (do some research on floods in Qld., last major one was 1974 iirc, and was very similar in size.) They are NOTHING UNUSUAL !!!

That is the Australian climate, that’s what it does……
periods of drought, with deluges for a couple of years at the end of each period…..

Another thing Lazy seems to forget that taxes in the “rich” EU countries are already criminally high. In the meantime governments like in Germany have introduced a lot of additional taxes (the price for coffee, for example, in Germany is more than 50% taxes, same for gasoline in both Germany and Austria.) Plus at the same time they also kept increasing the overall spending. Where do you think our national debts come from?

In Austria the government has the highest tax income in history and our national debt still went from 70% of the GDP in 2010 to 80% in 2011. The Germans have crossed the 2 trillion Euro line already and they keep going up. Heck, in the past 40 years Germany had an even budget (income = expenses) once. The other 39 years always saw higher spending and a growing debt, despite insanely high taxes.

And yes, France is hitting the 75%. With that they’ll kill their economy. Everyone who can afford it with shovel his money out of the country. Companies that can afford it will leave France and the companies that can’t, well, they will do what Spain’s “green” energy has done: go belly up, which will then prompt the EU to get involved, led by “brave” neo-fascist His Royal Highness the Grand Commissar of the EUSSR José Manuel Barroso. Which means, we can get ready to bail out France.

Lazy Teenager,
Perhaps if you weren’t so “lazy” you might realize that the floods in Qld are a regular event, virtually identical to those in 1973 as but one example going back to the 1800’s. Also of note is that these floods were made markedly worse by CAGW alarmism, which caused dams meant for flood mitigation to be held at levels above the point where they could do anything more than release water more rapidly to further exacerbate the problem.

You also ignore the fact that cyclone frequency below the Tropic of Capricorn has actually reduced markedly from the 1970’s onwards, in total contrast to CAGW theory. Australia is and has always been a “sunburnt country”, a land of “droughts and flooding rains”, has been so since the First Fleet in 1788, who nearly perished due to a decade long drought shortly after they arrived which made farming land untillable even on an alluvial plain along the coastal strip in the most moderate climate our continent has to offer.

So by all means ignore history, after all it is the only way you can make baseless assertions and draw conclusions which would otherwise be unjustified.

YES! The whole course of government in the last fifty years has been
to grab more taxes and power over the people. A simple examination of
budget sizes and the growth in the sheer number of laws and regulations
makes that a no-brainer.

In the past taxes and laws and regulations have been piled on us with the
intention of doing “good” for the country. The advocates for such were
misguided fools but not malicious.

That is not the case with global warming. The people who advocate this
have no good intentions for America. They advocate global warming
because they know the taxes and laws and regulation they want to
implement to fight global warming will destroy this country.

So we are no longer fighting fools — we are fighting people who hate this
country and wish to see it destroyed. Global warming is their weapon.

My opinion about this was formed by attending a number of “green rallies”
and listening to the hate for America that was constantly bubbling up in
the crowd and among the speakers. You hear it from their own mouths.

Poor old Lazy, suddenly finds questions he can’t answer. Here’s a hint lazy old mate, USA emissions are heading back to 1990 levels but non OECD emissions are soaring.
Get on the next flight to China, India etc and demonstrate your concern, I’m sure they’ll be sympathetic to your cause and treat you with kid gloves. NOT.
But take heart Lazy you will wake up to yourself one day, let’s just hope that it’s sooner rather than later.

LazyTeenager says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:24 pm
Moreover, more warmth always causes extra evaporation from lakes and oceans. What goes up, must form clouds and come down somewhere as extra precipitation.
———
Sure, but where does it come down? The Australian economy has just recovered from a series of massive floods in one year. The floods took 2% off the GDP.

Much earlier a Robert W and Rob Honeycutt said the following:

“Badgersouth and I were just discussing the potential of setting up a coordinated “Crusher Crew” where we could pull our collective time and knowledge together in order to pounce on overly vocal deniers on various comments sections of blogs and news articles.” – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

“May I suggest first on our list as being the *#1 Science Blog* “Watts up with that”? They get a few people come there to engage from time to time but rarely a coordinated effort.” – Robert W. [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011

So Lazy Teenager are you one of the Crusher Crew trolls? It looks like others pointed out your errors. Seems like everytime I see you post it is the same lack of intelictual integrity on your part or just a lack of knowledge. Too bad you don’t seem to learn the truth.

Neville. says:”So tell us lazy teenager, how would you reduce co2 emissions? ”

Neville, you should answer: why reducing CO2?! If you have been brainwashed that: 150y ago was the best amount of CO2 for the trees and crops – it doesn’t mean that; the trees / crops should be denied extra CO2 that they desperately need. Blaming CO2 & water vapor – but calling themselves green, is the biggest stupidity. Not, how to reduce CO2, BUT WHY?! Stop using Hansen’s brains, start using your own. Carbon molesters like you, don’t know that: their bodies are 23-25% made from carbon. 2] if you burn a 5 ton tree. – only 0,5kg ash left, all the rest H2O +CO2 gone in smoke. Same goes for the food you eat. reducing CO2 would be a crime!…

Some idiot in an ivory tower wants to explode an asteroid to create a dust cloud that will ‘shade’ the Earth. As if they know what they are doing.

Who still believes that anthorpogenic global warming garbage? The cure is worse than the ‘disease’. Sure, let’s wreck economies, and allow a few government officials make decisions for us regarding what cars we can drive, what food we can eat, when we can turn on light bulbs, and what kind of light bulbs we can own. They also get to decide whether we’ll be treated for a disease or just given pain medication while we die.

Yes, we have been warming since the Little Ice Age (ending ~1750), and Dalton minimum (~1815). The issue is whether the warming is natural. The side issue is whether CO2 has anything to do with causing the rise. The real science (as opposed to the government-funded hogwash intended to support policies requiring more government control and central planning) indicates warmer periods a few centuries and millenia ago occurred naturally. Atmospheric CO2 concentratin change is an effect of warming and cooling, not a cause. We are able to feed more people with higher CO2 concentrations because crops are more productive. More people die of cold than from heat.

Meanwhile, government imposed green poverty will force devloped nations to adopt third-world living conditions. Power will be unreliable. If refrigeration is unreliable, food will spoil. Disease will increase. Unemployment will be much higher, and available work will be more manual labor. Middle class? What middle class? Yes, the cure is far, far worse than the disease. Why do they do it? Well, the powerful will get everything (they think) and lord over the masses. The flaw in their logic is they won’t be able to maintain civilization – it will collapse. Only a highly educated free middle class can support modern technology.

The answer is high per-capita energy consumption and providing abundant reliable and inexpensive power that can last for centuries. We have that technology available – thorium burned in modular integral fast reactors. Little waste produced. Inexpensive to build. 1000x safer than current generation reactors. If we build liquid core reactors, they can’t “melt” down, since they are already liquid. They self-regulate, and safety is simple: pull the plug, they go sub-critical and cool to a solid in air. Restarting is easy – heat, liquefy, and pump back to the core.

The choice is simple: a phony Little House on the Prairie, or a real Star Trek future.

LazyTeenager says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:27 pm
The whole climate scam is just a smoke screen to hide the UN inspired grab for more taxes and more power.
————-
Utter BS. The trend under all governments, both left and right, over the last 25 years has been reduced taxes.

—-

For some strange reason, you seem to believe that your point is not only responsive to the intial claim, but actually refutes it.

Of course you are also confusing tax rates with taxes. Liberals often confuse the two, usually on purpose.

By the way — a budget deficit is really a “delayed tax”. The taxpayer has to pay for it sometime. If you really want to figure out the true tax burden placed on the people year by year you need to add together the collected taxes and the budget deficit.

By that correct standard under Obama our taxes have risen faster and higher than at any time in the past.

“A scheming cabal of green bureaucrats, academics and corporate speculators is trying to scare us into a mess of energy taxes, subsidies and rationing in order to combat what they call “catastrophic man-made global warming”.”

Are you all so certain there is no connection between rejection of the science of global warming, and a fondness for conspiracy theories? Given the vehemence of your response to Lewandowsky et al, 2012, you sure seem fond of posting conspiracy theories.

We will begin with a LONG time period; about three and a half centuries. Let’s look at the trend:

As we see, the long term trend is the same, whether CO2 is low or high. That is verified in this Wood For Trees chart. The naturally rising global temperature since the LIA has remained within its long term parameters. There is no acceleration in global warming; it is on the same trend line that it was on before the start of the industrial revolution, thus falsifying the CO2=CAGW conjecture. (CAGW = ‘catastrophic anthropogenic global warming’.)

The scientific fact that CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperature is confirmed here. Notice that the two warming episodes — again, one when CO2 was low, and the other when CO2 was high — shows conclusively that any effect from CO2 is so minuscule that it is not even measurable, since the rising temperature trends are exactly the same.

Empirical measurements also show conclusively that CO2 follows temperature on all time scales, from decades to hundreds of millennia. That proves that the alarmist crowd has cause and effect reversed. Temperature changes cause CO2 changes, not vice-versa. There is no empirical, testable scientific evidence showing that rising CO2 causes rising temperatures. That false belief is based on an entirely coincidental and short-term correlation, which is now breaking down. There has been no global warming for 15 years, while CO2 has risen steadily.

Finally, the planet is starved of harmless, beneficial CO2. More is better. With added CO2 the biosphere will thrive, and there will be no global harm or damage. The “carbon” scare is a false alarm.

Using verifiable scientific facts, it is demonstrated above that CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature. None. The reason that the alarmist contingent cannot get anything right is because they are fixated on the false and disproven presumption that CO2 drives temperature — when, in fact, exactly the opposite is true.

The ”Skeptics” will never win against Warmist lies; by telling bigger lies of their own. please, read that post, if you want the Warmist to take you seriously. Ian Plimer’s lies (which you are parroting) are giving oxygen to the Warmist. Cheers!

Tom Curtis says:
September 30, 2012 at 6:06 pm
“A scheming cabal of green bureaucrats, academics and corporate speculators is trying to scare us into a mess of energy taxes, subsidies and rationing in order to combat what they call “catastrophic man-made global warming”.”

Are you all so certain there is no connection between rejection of the science of global warming, and a fondness for conspiracy theories? Given the vehemence of your response to Lewandowsky et al, 2012, you sure seem fond of posting conspiracy theories.

Tim says:

Are you another of the Crusher Crew trolls?

Scheming cabal of green bureaucrats trying to scare us in to energy taxes, subsisdies and rationing? Sorry that is not a conspiracy theory. I wish it was. Green bureaucrats are already doing it. Academics? Sorry, really sorry, at least some seem to be doing it already to. Corporate speculators? Sorry, really really sorry, there are some of those involved aready too.

I really wish it was just a conspiracy theory at this point. Taxes would be lower, energy would be cheaper, and trolls like you wouldn’t be caught up in helping them. Sad day. I really really really wish you were right, but just like all of the other trolls you’re just a trollin.

As a fellow south east Queenslander I can say I have never understood the European fear of a bit of warm weather – where I live we already have more than the proposed 2 degree C average increase that seems to terrify Europeans.

As a coastal resident of Caloundra I can also vouch that whilst Caloundra rarely exceeds 29 – 30 degrees C Rosewood can be quite a bit warmer as it is inland.

Tom Curtis says September 30, 2012 at 6:06 pm:
…
Are you all so certain there is no connection between rejection of the science of global warming, and a fondness for conspiracy theories?

Tom Curtis may be unaware of the roughly half billion dollar loss to the taxpayers due to the * Solyndra (but WINDFALL to the ‘green energy’ speculators) because of the foolish public policy being recommended by academics et al for renewables?

The connection being something like this Academics—Govt Bureaucrats—-Crony Green Co’s

Not a conspiracy, but a clear, clean linkage (where is poster follow-the-money when one needs him/her?).

Tim Walker says: ”The Australian economy has just recovered from a series of massive floods in one year. The floods took 2% off the GDP”

Tim, you are WRONG!.It took 2% + from GDP, because of ”senator Brown’s Water Embargo on Australia” Since 82, dam was built no more. Australia is the driest continent – surrounded by the biggest mass of water on the planet / but is the driest. Dams prevent flooding, dams attract regular clouds from the sea – dams improve the climate – dams produce hydro-electricity.

Instead of building dams, to keep water for dry days – in Australia storm-water must be flushed into the sea during storms – reason clouds avoid Australia as cars around traffic island. When finally clouds get in – drop the rain = floods; because dead soil doesn’t absorb and retain water. Tim, water is life. You want to learn the truth: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/5floods-droughts-we-dont-need-to-have/

“This is very simple Kindy maths that a competent 5 year old can understand, so why have we got such stupid donkeys running our countries?”

Maybe because elephants mis-remember how many houses and Rolls Royce they own. When the country is about to go off a financial precipice, instead of picking a Mr. Fix-it businessman to share their executive branch plans, an ill prepared rookie (non toxic tax returns) is chosen instead?

Elephants find it very difficult to turn their heads far enough to look at their own selves.

What is the ideal average temperature for planet Earth? What is the ideal water level in the oceans? What is the ideal amount of ice at the poles and in mountain glaciers? What is the ideal rainfall? Should we attempt to return all aspects of the environment of Earth to the way it was in 1750 or 1850 or 1950 or maintain it exactly the way it is today. Is it imperative to protect all current species in the wild just as they are now, or to return them to the way they were in balance at some point in the past? Never mind that all of these things from temperatures to species have changed constantly through the 4.5 billion years of history. Ice ages have come and gone and thousands of species develop and die off with each climatic shift.

The global warming alarmist, I think , want to ignore or pretend there are no natural changes but to them any changes that occur must be the result of our civilization and be regarded as totally unacceptable. The alarmists greatly exagerate the effects of our civilization as they totally ignore the natural variations.

I simply wish they could relax and enjoy our wonderful civilization and our spectacular natural environment and the natural flow of weather and climate.

GEEZZZ Stefan what are you talking about? Can you understand simple english? I am not making a case for reducing co2 emissions, just pointing out it is an impossibility anyway.
The mitigation of AGW by the OECD countries is the greatest fraud and con in the last 100 years.
Simple maths shows it can’t be done, it is a fraud and a con, just a way of wasting billions dollars for a zero return. Understand me now?

Lazy Teenager, there was a short-term hit to the economy following the Queensland floods – no question. There was widespread flood damage.

What you neglect to mention is that there will be at least five bumper years to follow. The dams are full for the first time in many years, the aquifers have been replenished, the soil has been soaked way down deep, allowing deep rooted trees etc to stock up on nutrients and grow, the creeks and rivers have been flushed and the fish are thriving, a lot of infrastructure which was poor quality or past its use-by date has been replaced, farmers and graziers are having great seasons, and so on.

Extremes of drought and flood are part of the climate cycle in Queensland and across much of Australia, and have been as far back as records exist. Nothing to do with CO2. Get over it.

D Böehm says: ”stefanthedenier, The MWP was generally a global event, as confirmed by ice core evidence from both hemispheres, and numerous other proxies”

.D Böehm, the ”proxy data” is much bigger crap, than what comes from IPCC now. Because they were not scrutinized.

”Ice Core”?! Boehm, ice on Greenland, Antarctic is melted up to 2m a year, from below, by the geothermal heat – similar amount is added on the top, by freeze-drying the moisture from the air. Because the shonks see that is no rain and snow on Antarctic, presume that ice is 500000 y old. Read the post i recommended in that comment above, then comment. Because, I know what you know, but obviously you don’t know what I know – therefore, I have unfair advantage on you. Be fair to yourself, Those outdated pagan ”proxy” beliefs you are quoting, are the precursor of the today’s lunacy. Skeptic’s smelly skeletons in their closet are the life-support to the Warmist – otherwise the Warmist would have collapsed in few months.. don’t be scared from real proofs

Carbon taxes that don’t diminish CO2 output but do redistribute wealth and create huge fees for “brokers”?
Academic papers on wide ranging subjects that all contain a bow to global warming?
Socialists who we know scheme for bigger government as the solution to every problem advocating for the reality of global warming?

So let me see — there is not a social movement to advance the global warming agenda of a “mess of energy taxes, subsidies and rationing”? We really don’t see a liberal media that advances global warming in its headlines and won’t even allow a dissenting voice on its back pages? Look what happened after Anthony Watts’ short interview on the BBC. No more dissent will be heard there!

“A rejection of the science of global warming”? “Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.” By that definition I am forced to ask — what science of global warming? There seems to be damn little of it. (I must laugh and point out that the modelers no longer say that their models make predictions but rather they say that they produce projections — thus removing their models from the province of science.) Is cherry picking your data science? Is refusing to provide your data so your work can be examined and replicated science? Is pal-review science? — Let me ask you a question — do you think that the hockey stick is science? “Cabal” is your smear word but is the “hockey team” a cabal? Seems damn close to it.

Farmers and botanists around the northern hemisphere would save billions on the cost of building, maintaining and heating greenhouses to simulate the warm and moist artificial environments used for Greenhouse & Hydroponic production of fruit and vegetables.

in 1995 a few hundred people dies in Chicago as the result of a heat wave. Mostly the elderly and the very young. So warmer and moister is not a good thing for everyone. A simple look at what a 2C increase in temperature would mean in terms of excess deaths is pretty instructive. Of course UHI makes it worse. In a warming world it’s pretty easy to find some winners and some losers.

If folks want to doubt the danger of heat waves they are of course free to do so. But the elected officials in many US and foriegn cities already have warning systems in place, because they are actually accountable for their beliefs.

If there is CHEAP, RELIABLE electricity, and air conditioning available, there is no need for even the elderly to suffer when it gets a bit warm. Anything that makes electricity un-necessarily expensive, or unreliable, is against all tenets of decent society.
In a modern society, electricity cost and supply SHOULD NEVER be an issue, but the green and renewable schemes are adding large amounts to bills. For no reasonable purpose !

I dread what will happen in the northern winters over the next few years if there is a temperature down turn. And I hope the people who have driven their countries to their current situations of excessive electricity cost and unreliablity are held fully accountable.

The second dam in SEQld, the dam on the Mitchell River in Victoria, and Welcome Reef south of Sydney should all have been built. But you need to realise that there are issues with the landscape. Most normal rain in Australia falls very much on the east coast strip, and the narrow coastal strip is actually quite flat and not suitable for dams. Take Sydney for instance. The main dam is Warragamba, which is in the east escarpment of the Blue mountains. The catchment area for this dam has HALF the annual average rainfall of Sydney. Yet most of Sydney’s rainfall goes straight out to sea.

What I’m saying is that land suitable for dams is not always in the high rainfall areas. and in general the high rainfall areas are not suitable for dams.

We also have the issue that Australia has essentially the most variable rainfall in the world, these big storms are generally pretty far apart time-wise, so very large storage is required for long term NATURAL drought periods.
SEQld has the problem that it needs 3-4 times the storage capacity it currently has, if the dams are to be used for both flood mitigation AND water supply (opposite purposes, a full dam has zero flood mitigation).
Melbourne has similar shortfalls in storage capacity, Thompson Dam is not big enough for long term drought security, they SHOULD have built the one on the Mitchell ages ago.

Even in Newcastle (north of Sydney) we don’t really have enough storage to cope with a long drought, Tillegra or similar needs building at some stage in the not too distance future. .

in 1995 a few hundred people dies in Chicago as the result of a heat wave. Mostly the elderly and the very young. So warmer and moister is not a good thing for everyone. A simple look at what a 2C increase in temperature would mean in terms of excess deaths is pretty instructive. Of course UHI makes it worse. In a warming world it’s pretty easy to find some winners and some losers.

If folks want to doubt the danger of heat waves they are of course free to do so. But the elected officials in many US and foriegn cities already have warning systems in place, because they are actually accountable for their beliefs.
==============
Or just run the cold water in the bath.
No need for elected officials, or beliefs.

Steven Mosher;
In a warming world it’s pretty easy to find some winners and some losers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

1. In a cooling world, the losers out number the winners hundreds to one compared to a warming world.

2. In a world stripped of cheap energy, the losers out number the winners by millions to one compared to either cooling or warming.

3. You still have not substantiated your claim from another thread that new data and processes justify adjusting temps from the distant past downward. I’d appreciate it if you could justify said claim.

davidmhoffer says:
3. You still have not substantiated your claim from another thread that new data and processes justify adjusting temps from the distant past downward. I’d appreciate it if you could justify said claim.

david..
the data is output from their models.
the natural trend isn’t anywhere near steep enough, so obviously all the old data MUST need to be adjusted downwards to reflect the “reality” of their models.

lazy teenager says:
“Sure, but the same amount of fall in average temperatures would bring on the ice age. Saying a rise of that amount has no effect is not physically consistent.”
Steve @ lazy teenager says:
“That’s true enough. both sides of the argument should stop conflating short and long term trends.”

From a given global average temperature, consider a long-term down-trend in temperature, delta-t that would eventually spawn continental icesheets. Now, from that same global average temperature, consider a long-term (same length of time) up-trend by the same delta-t. Which trend is more quickly returned to the pre-trend global temperature?

“in 1995 a few hundred people dies in Chicago as the result of a heat wave…”

Heat waves are deadly, who would disagree with that? Do they have moist heatwaves in Chicago?

Here are some earlier heatwaves… You know, before CO2 became the cause of warming.

11 August 1900,
It was reported in the US that 26 die in record high temperatures of up to 107 degrees F.
2 July 1900,
In New York Nearly 400 people die in one day during a heat wave, with Temperatures up to 110 degrees F (37 degrees C) in the shade.
31 August 1906.
London: A heat wave brings Temperatures as high a 93 degrees Fahrenheit in the shade
23 May 1908,
Uganda: 4000 deaths from severe famine in Usoga region.
9 July 1911,
US: 652 deaths in a week are reported during a heat wave.
9 August 1911,
London: Hottest day in the capital for 70 years, 97 degree Fahrenheit in the shade.
26 August 1911,
London: Reported that 2500 children have died in the recent heat wave.
28 August 1911,
London: Thousands Die in record heat wave and has set Britain’s death rate soaring. With a mortality rate for all ages of 19 per 1,000.
22 May 1922,
London: The highest May temperatures for 50 years, 88 degrees F in the shade recorded.
28 August 1930,
UK: 34 people have died in a heat wave: temperatures in London soar to 94 degrees F (34 degrees C).
11 July 1938,
Eskimos in the Arctic complain of a heat wave: it is 67 degrees F (19C).

I have a lot more on heatwaves, let me know if you want a list of hurricanes, forests fires, floods, blizzards, thunderstorms or even examples of weather extremes like this for example,

a period of 13 months in the UK .
9 August 1911,
London: Hottest day in the capital for 70 years, 97 degree Fahrenheit in the shade.
16 August 1911,
Manchester: Reported that the city is living on food reserves and that famine threatens
28 August 1911,
London: Thousands Die in record heat wave and has set Britain’s death rate soaring
4 February 1912,
UK: Big Freeze takes hold as temperatures drop to as low as -35 degrees F.
26 August 1912,
UK: Worst August rainfall on record, six inches in 12 hours causes floods that cut off Norwich and other towns.

Record breaking heat, areas threatened by famine, record heat wave, thousands die then a Big Freeze, record rainfall and floods.

All recorded before man made global warming and CO2 levels were lower.

Steven Mosher says:
“A simple look at what a 2C increase in temperature would mean in terms of excess deaths is pretty instructive.”

So what are you saying about a 2C increase in temperature? What will it actually do?

Something that always annoys me about these “In a hundred years…” projections is that they totally ignore the likely technological innovations that will be developed during those hundred years. Yes, it’s a good idea to cut down on pollution where we can, but to proceed on the assumption that NO solutions or fixes or ameliorations will be found to these problems is simply unrealistic. And, as I believe has been pointed out here many times, the theories that produce computer models making wild projections while ignoring their own inherent limitations and their inability to account for confounders and unknown or under-appreciated natural processes, are also open to a lot of criticism.

Should you plan for your individual economic future? Should you try to have a saftey cushion built in? Of course. But should you plan for it on the basis of your income never increasing while simultaneously every possible economic disaster befalls you? Only if you love ulcers.

That’s what they are doing in Perth, Australia. They are even treating effulent to very high standards and injecting it into the aquifers. Perth has very little above ground water storage. And not much rain. And it get pretty warm in summer !

While it is apparently true that a 2 degree fall in temperature can lead to an ice age I see no particular harm in the climate moving two degrees further from an ice age. Only if the ice caps melt is there any down-side to warming, and I don’t see much chance of Antartica melting any time soon: at an average temperature of -30 degrees, 2 degrees is too small a warming to do anything much. Water freezes at 0 degrees.

It has been my observation that during heat waves that kill, there is a lot of humidity. It is the water vapour and not CO2 that keeps the heat in.
Chinooks are quite common where I used to live (Alberta, Lethbridge, Age 5 and 6) and they cause large temperature swings. One of the largest temperature swings in history, at least in Canada, was in Pincher Creek, the temperature rose by 41°C (74°F), from -19 to 22°C (-2 to 72°F), in one hour in 1962.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinook_wind

AndyG55 says: ”Stefan, Yes, we should have built more dams down here”,

AndyG, clouds drop the rain close to the coast in Australia, but not in Brazil, WHY?. If you don’t know how to fix your car – look at the one that is fixed, to learn. Andy, clouds avoid dry heat! Reason they are repossessing farmer’s water – farmers irrigate when is hot / dry – that water evaporates and fights against the dry heat created in the center – minus that small contribution = dry heat will increase and come closer to Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane (where the vote is).

Please read the post i suggested in the comment September 30, 2012 at 6:37 pm – we have a lot to share. ( don’t scare the lazy tanager – by talking about building dams… dams are built by working people)

Steven Mosher says: ” So warmer and moister is not a good thing for everyone”

Mosher, sometime you say things that make sense – but often you are more ignorant than a camel. ”moist” is not warmer, Steven. Compare the hottest in Brazil and Sahara.

Heatwaves are CREATED IN DESERTS. Then they go to civilized areas, to penalize them for listening for people like you. From Sahara / Arabian peninsular heatwaves are going to southern Europe, and increasing – heatwaves from central Australia goes to the coast and burns people in bushfires – Californian bushfires are for same reason as Australian’s – dry air from the desert is vacuuming the moisture from the vegetation for the previous 10 months = big bushfires. If you have stomach for the truth, real proofs: Learn the real truth about water vapor; you’ll be glad you did: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/water-vapor/

D Böehm says: ” ice core evidence is accepted by both sides of the debate. And there is ample evidence verifying that the MWP was a global event. You could start learning about it here”

:Böehm mate, I have learned about what you are pointing about; well, long, long time ago. That’s why I’ve pointed to you that: the ice cores don’t tell lies; but the ones that use them, doo. 1] both sides were creating the foundation for the Warmist lies – now they use the code of silence about the truth. 2] their 50 000y old ice is less than 300yt old. (please read that post, don’t be scared) 3] is in the ice core written the temperature above Pacific for thousands of years ago?! Pacific is as large as all the dry land on the planet. Pagan beliefs are collapsing – if it wasn’t for the Fake Skeptics – all Warmist would had faced the truth by now. Yes, you are correct: both sides of the sandpit agree on many fairy-tales; but that doesn’t makes the ”proxy fairy-tales” to be correct.
if you read what I pointed, after that, i will give you another post to read; on the ‘ice core subject” or you can see it there as: ”WARMER=MORE ICE”

For interest Steven I suggest you research winter excess deaths in the UK. The UK has a very poor record of protecting the vulnerable from the cold. These links will give you a good start, so you don’t condemn more of the UK population to a miserable lonely death.

“The whole climate scam is just a smoke screen to hide the UN inspired grab for more taxes and more power.”

On the nail, Viv. The UN has a lot of power but, since no-one anywhere ever voted for them, no authority. And didn’t someone once say, “no taxation without representation”? Ultimately, the UN is the junta we need to depose, and soon.

Stefan
“clouds drop the rain close to the coast in Australia, but not in Brazil, WHY?.”

Its a geography thing.. We have what is called “The Great Dividing Range” situated between 5km -100km from the eastern seaboard. Nearly all our major rain storms comes from what is called “east coast lows’ ie low pressure systems off-shore that pump warm moist air toward the coast. This air hits the GDR and is forced upwards, and we get these massive down-pours. These are often very localised.
We do get other rain events but they are generally front vs front events, mostly heading up the coast, with generally with lighter rainfall. On hot days in summer you sort of pray for a ‘southerly buster” to come through.
When the El Nina, La Nino switches, we get a LOTof warm moist air to the north east of Queensland and we get events like the recent SEQld floods.

Is that most of the licences were bases on a natural high rainfall period in the 1950s-1980s…..they over allocated. This means that if farmers take their alloted allocations ina normal year (whatever that is down here), then the Darling and Murray rivers stand a good chance of running dry.
Now since the city of Adelaide essentially depends on the Murray-Darling system for its water, this is probably not a good idea… (although some would disagree ;-)
There is a balance somewhere, but predicting rainfall and river flows in any region of Australia away from the coast is pretty much like trying to win lotto.
The greens, of course, want to destroy Australian agriculture so want massive cuts in irrigation licences. Its the green way. Whereas the farmers ant to be able to feed Australia and make a living.
Maybe once they get away from the AGW meme, the government will be able to start making sensible decisions about the balance,, who knows. !

stefan
“that water evaporates and fights against the dry heat created in the center – minus that small contribution = dry heat will increase and come closer to Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane ”

roflmao.. you seriously have to ‘enjoy’ central NSW and Vicortia on a ‘warm’ day. then you might understand.. moisture in that area is a non-entity most of the time in a dry summer., both Sydney and Brisbane are coastal cities and vary enormously depending on the direction of the wind. Continuous days of westerlies in summer, in either city, are not pleasant. They weren’t in the 1960’s, 70’s and they are NO DIFFERENT now, but the afternoon on-shore sea breezes are a blessing, even if the do stuff up the surf.
Melbourne can get really hot, doesn’t get the onshore breezes because its a fair way from the ocean. Adelaide can apparently be even worse, and has limited rainfall to boot.

please think… Dams cannot be used for both water storage and hydro electricty. they are conflicting attributes.

Yes, we do have small hydro plants on some of our dams. Sydney’s Warragamba Damis a water storage dam, as is Melbourne’s Thomson Reservoir. Whivenhoe near Brisbane tries to be both a flood mitigation and a storage reservoir, and has failed to do either properly over the last several years.

Only the dams in Tasmania and the Snowy Mountains are used extensively for hydro, and they do not supply water to any major capital cities.

Your are so right.
But not to forget absolute temperature differences worldwide varying from minus 89oC up to more than plus 58oC!!!!
That`s a staggering 147oC difference!!!!
And they are talking an catastrophic rise of plus 0,6oC for the last 100 years???? hahahaha

“Moreover, more warmth always causes extra evaporation from lakes and oceans. What goes up, must form clouds and come down somewhere as extra precipitation.
———
Sure, but where does it come down? The Australian economy has just recovered from a series of massive floods in one year. The floods took 2% off the GDP.”

You remind of the guy that turned down a million dollar a year job. When his wife berated him why the turned down such a lucrative job, he replied: “Are you crazy? Think of all the tax I’d have to pay!”

Who remembers those balmy days during the Jurassic, when CO2 levels were many times higher than today? Lush green plants ran rampant, almost from pole to pole, nourished by an endless supply of rich CO2 and abundant rainfall.

re: LazyTeenager says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:27 pm
“The whole climate scam is just a smoke screen to hide the UN inspired grab for more taxes and more power.
————-
Utter BS. The trend under all governments, both left and right, over the last 25 years has been reduced taxes.”

“LazyTeenager says:
September 30, 2012 at 4:19 pm
… ——-
Sure, but the same amount of fall in average temperatures would bring on the ice age. Saying a rise of that amount has no effect is not physically consistent.”

Really!? You mean that?

I believe we should consider that all of your remarks have equal merit then…

I am curious, what kind of anti-glacial effects do you see heading to the poles from the tropics based on your 2C ice age argument? And don’t try the old frighten us with stormy weather events approach. Storms do not put 1-2 Km of ice/water on top of land and we can construct storm proof structures.

“Steven Mosher says:
September 30, 2012 at 7:27 pm
in 1995 a few hundred people dies in Chicago as the result of a heat wave. Mostly the elderly and the very young. So warmer and moister is not a good thing for everyone. A simple look at what a 2C increase in temperature would mean in terms of excess deaths is pretty instructive. Of course UHI makes it worse. In a warming world it’s pretty easy to find some winners and some losers.

If folks want to doubt the danger of heat waves they are of course free to do so. But the elected officials in many US and foriegn cities already have warning systems in place, because they are actually accountable for their beliefs.”

Steve, are you selling us an extreme weather event as a climate fact? Not only that, but you are also selling us a 2C increase in temperatures equals the Chicago heaat wave of 1995?

From:”The 1995 Chicago Heat Wave: How Likely Is a Recurrence?”
_________________Thomas R. Karl and Richard W. Knight
_________________National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
“d. Recurrence for the 1995 heat wave in a changed climate
Projected increases of temperature in the Midwest due to increases in greenhouse gases (IPCC 1996b) suggest an increase of summertime temperature of about 3°C by the end of the next century. Less certain are exactly how the interannual and intramonthly variability may change, as well as the day-to-day persistence of temperature, but there is a suggestion of reduced intramonthly temperature variability. Uncertainties in changes in these quantities produce an expanded uncertainty range of the likelihood of such an event in a warmer climate. Using changes of s2 m, s2 a, and r that are bounded by the type of decadal variations seen during the recent century, we can provide some measure of this uncertainty. Figure 5a indicates that with a 3°C increase of temperature, the return period of an extreme 1-day Tap 47.8°C would change from the current 1 in 23 to 1 in every 6 yr, and for the 2-day event from 1 in 150 down to about 1 in 25 yr. The atypical nature of the extremely high values of Tap would not become commonplace but certainly would become frequent enough to remember. Perhaps of greater interest, however, because of the more extreme nature of the record high minimum Tap, the 1-
day (2 day) event with the minimum Tap remaining above 33.9°C (31.6°C) continues to be an unusual event with probabilities of occurrence less than 1%.

Basically, under any definition the 1995 Chicago heat wave is an extreme weather event.

From: “The 1995 Heat Wave in Chicago, Illinois”
________________Dr. Jim Angel, State Climatologist
________________Illinois State Water Survey
________________Champaign, IL 61820-7463
…Most of the victims of the 1995 heat wave were the elderly in the heart of the urban area. Many of the poorer older citizens either had no air conditioning or could not afford to operate the system they had. Many older citizens were also hesitant to open windows and doors at night for fear of crime. By contrast, in the heat waves of the 1930s, many residents slept outside in the parks or along the shore of Lake Michigan.

Other factors that contributed to the high number of deaths were an inadequate local heat wave warning system, power failures, inadequate ambulance service and hospital facilities, and the aging of the population in the urban areas…

Highlights added by myself.

Now Steve, How many of the deaths attributed to the heat wave were because:
Refusing to open windows?
Power outage?
Inadequate Ambulance Service?
Inadequate notice of extreme heat (though I think most of these people figured it was hot on their own)?
Unable to afford the electricity?
Unable to afford transportation elsewhere?
Lack of local “heat shelters” where people could go to for relief?
Attributable to higher particulate matter levels in stagnant air masses?
Just plain irascible elders who despise A/C and only turn it on for special guests?
Or any combination of the above or myriad reasons.

My Father never turned on A/C of his own accord. If a close relation, other than his wife, asked for A/C his deafness increased in direct proportion to the queries. If the Pastor showed up and asked if it could be cooler, he’d turn it on while the Pastor was there and turned it off immediately after. At night he qould turn it on, because his wife asked, but he’d complain that he can’t sleep. Great guy, but still a touchy old bear.

All in all, I think there is a far better chance of good survival if electricity stays cheap, heat shelters are opened, much like cold shelters, storm shelters, blizzard shelters…

“…Changnon et al. (1996) have analyzed the impacts and responses to the 1995 heat wave, and Kunkel et al. (1996) have reviewed the synoptic weather associated with the heat wave. Kunkel et al. (1996) have also compared the Chicago heat wave with previous great heat waves of this century. Their analysis, like this one, considered the apparent temperature Tap, which attempts to quantify the effects of temperature and moisture on the human body (Steadman 1984). Kunkel et al. (1996) showed that during the 1995 heat wave high dewpoints, due to limited vertical mixing from a subsidence inversion, played a key role in the high values of Tap. They also concluded that the peak intensity of the 3- to 4-day heat wave was exceeded by only a few other heat waves during the 1930s, but this was based on the mean Tap. Their historical analysis was based on twentieth-century data from Chicago and nearly 50 years of data from 18 other Midwest stations…”

Hotter in the 1930s huh?
I wonder where I’ve heard that before? Before Jimmy the activist got to them… /rhetorical

I think the whole global warming fraud has a much more sinister aspect than most people realize. The world as we know it is almost mostly controlled by a oligarchical imperial system and a free educated population has no room for this lot. What better way is there to maintain a world empire than to have control of all aspects of the global economy with a carbon cap and trade system.

This post appears on your blog. Should we interpret this to mean that you endorse it? Agree with it? Think it is interesting? Possibly wrong but worthy of discussion?

I am finding your blog a more and more confusing place to visit. Genuine scientific skepticism seems to be being increasingly displaced by political arguments and stuff like this which borders on conspiracy theory.

Posting material on WUWT without comment suggests some level of endorsement. Yet this piece is worlds apart from the measured and rational approach of your recent PBS interview. It seems to me that WUWT is becoming a free-for-all where any opinion (however wild) that disagrees with CAGW can get posted. It doesn’t seem to matter when posts flatly contradict each other as long as they all dismiss or propose some alternative to at least some element of mainstream climate science. The critics who accuse WUWT of aiming to spread doubt and confusion may have a point when opinion pieces like this are posted without comment.

Nigel, when you say, “It seems to me that WUWT is becoming a free-for-all where any opinion (however wild) that disagrees with CAGW can get posted.” it seems to strongly imply that you’re speaking of a pronounced and growing trend. Perhaps it would help folks understand the basis of your claim better if you offered a few background examples for support?

In case you’re not familiar: Plants need CO2 to construct sugar and other organic molecules, so use stomata (little valves) on the underside of leaves to take it in. This permits water to escape, which must be replaced. (This is the ‘pump’ that drives plant circulation, so a certain flow is necessary.) When there is more CO2 in the air, plants get by with fewer and smaller stomata, which reduces evaporation from leaves, and hence their water requirements. Another way to look at this is that a given amount of water can support larger or more numerous plants when CO2 is higher.

michaeljmcfadden says:
October 1, 2012 at 1:07 pmNigel, when you say, “It seems to me that WUWT is becoming a free-for-all where any opinion (however wild) that disagrees with CAGW can get posted.” it seems to strongly imply that you’re speaking of a pronounced and growing trend. Perhaps it would help folks understand the basis of your claim better if you offered a few background examples for support?

How that makes him any kind of expert on climate change is beyond me – unless guest posts from all professions are welcome – chefs, accountants, pediatricians, etc. And regarding issues of bias? Please.

Let’s look at some of the comments Viv made: “The proposition that this mild warming, if it occurs, would be “catastrophic” is so laughable that they had to invent “positive feedbacks” to multiply this scare to maybe six degrees in a century..” Hmmm, so the idea that melting permafrost can cause higher rates of methane release is invented? The idea that melting Arctic sea ice can cause increased solar absorptance is invented? The idea that melting glaciers and snow packs will cause similar absorptance is invented? That’s example #1

Viv said: “Moreover, more warmth always causes extra evaporation from lakes and oceans. What goes up, must form clouds and come down somewhere as extra precipitation.”

While I am not a climate scientist, that seems like a fair statement. Of course, it ignores the issue of too much precipitation, ie the increased incidents of flooding that are projected for many parts of the world. And it conveniently ignores that fact that more evaporation is not a good thing for inland locations, and in no way helps generate precipitation for those locations. That’s example #2

Your question/example No 1 shows only that you disagree with their postings and therefore they shouldn’t be put up. You don’t make the rules here and you don’t have to deal with the consequences of running a blog site badly.

Example No 2 You think that those dry lands won’t appreciate some more water and the current wet lands won’t figure out that building on flood plains is a problem with a solution. The second part of two is so silly that I know you wished you had paused before hitting the key.

No, that is incorrect. I am totally fine with, say, Anthony Watts posting an article criticizing a climate study for using UHI influenced data sites, or someone questioning whether Artic ice actually has a higher albedo than open water. I may disagree with those positions, but at least there is some scientific framework around which to have a discussion. Perhaps I have misunderstood the intent of this site.

Your comment on my example 2 makes no sense. I was saying that inland locations – like those of the US which has suffered extreme drought this year, are in no way assisted by warmer weather when they lack adjacent large bodies of water from which evaporation can occur. Explain to me how increased evaporation along the US coast is going to lead to increased rainfall in Nebraska, Oklahoma, etc? Same thing for the interior regions of Africa, which are projected to experience more drought if temperatures rise.

Chris, I don’t know why you’re answering for Nigel, but you didn’t actually respond to my question. Nigel stated that “WUWT is becoming a free-for-all where any opinion (however wild) that disagrees with CAGW can get posted.” which implies a lot more than a simple disagreement with a single guest posting. I was not asking for criticisms of THIS article — I was asking what other articles indicated that WUWT was “becoming” a free for all with wild opening articles being posted as WUWT material.

I do not have a strong background opinion in this area. A few years two ago I would say I’d probably have been 60 to 70% a “warmer.” Today, I’m probably about 70 to 80% a “skeptic.” This is partly due to the excellent material in the primary posts at WUWT as well as the level of commentary attached to them, and partly due to seeing the parallels in the fight against “True Believers” that I’m familiar with in my own chief area of concern: the promotion of hysteria around secondhand, thirdhand, and umpteenth-hand smoke. I’m well aware of how difficult it can be for a layperson not deeply versed in the science of a debate to really see through the propaganda presented by advocates. Because of that awareness, and because I’ve seen the same tricks played by the warmers (fuzziness of language, playing the “Save The Children” card, ad hominem accusations of hidden ulterior competing interests, sound bite media imagery, reluctance to allow questioning of core tenets, etc.) as I’ve seen in the antismoking movement, I’ve moved more toward being a skeptic.

In terms of my own horses in the race: regarding climate, none. Regarding smoking issues see my book site at http://antibrains.com and read the Author’s Preface and the Bio.

How that makes him any kind of expert on climate change is beyond me – unless guest posts from all professions are welcome – chefs, accountants, pediatricians, etc. And regarding issues of bias? Please.

Chris:
This is one of the strangest assumptions I’ve heard recently, well, right after 4 molecules of CO2 (.04%) re-radiate captured energy and cause 9,996 molecules of air (99.86%) to heat up so much that they then heat the earth and ocean and raise the temperature globally by .67% (2C) to 2% (6C) which forms the buttress of CAGW alarmist claims.

What does a person’s career have to do with science? Is it your opinion that once a person chooses a career then that makes them unsuited or incapable of working in other areas of science?

So you desire to be relegated to one career/specialty for all of your life and everyone should denigrate you and belittle your attempts in other knowledge spheres?

Neither science nor scientists are contrained by your personal opinions of a person’s role in life.

Fair point, your comment was for Nigel to answer, not me – though I have the same opinion as Niigel in the 3 months I have read this site. To finish answering your question, another post that imho falls into the same category is a recent one by Caleb Shaw. He writes well, but when you boil it down, you get: the world is a wondrous, complicated place, one we should continue to be curious about. There are good scientists and bad scientists. And a long section about ice, it was very hard to understand what point he was trying to make. The overall message – stay curious and open minded. If that’s not fuzzy language, I don’t know what is.

You say: Because of that awareness, and because I’ve seen the same tricks played by the warmers (fuzziness of language, playing the “Save The Children” card, ad hominem accusations of hidden ulterior competing interests, sound bite media imagery, reluctance to allow questioning of core tenets, etc.) as I’ve seen in the antismoking movement, I’ve moved more toward being a skeptic.

You say ad hominem accusations of hidden ulterior competing interests. So it’s OK for readers here to continuously attack the motives of scientists (greed, prestige) but it’s not ok to raise the question of competing motives of someone who spent 40 years in the coal industry?

Now let’s look at Viv’s posting: warmth is good, moisture is good, CO2 is good, cold is bad. Does that not strike you as being so overtly simplistic as to to be almost useless? For example, the cold in the Arctic helps cool the US in the summer, it has a substantial influence on the jet stream. And, of course, he is wrong, we have had global warming before – at one point the atmosphere was 50C, back when CO2 levels were much higher. But let’s not let facts get in the way of a good message.

Well, I suppose if we are applying analytical skills of 3rd graders to the discussion, then yes. The farmers in the US Midwest were not well served by extra warmth this year, which dried out already dry fields and contributed to lower yields, not higher. Cold winters (nighttime lows of -30 to -40) used to keep mountain pine beetles in check, now that those are rarely reached, the beetle population has exploded and they have expanded their destructive habitat. Extra moisture in the air has led to devastating floods this year in Manila, and last year in Pakistan. The increased CO2 levels in the ocean are leading to acidification, which in turn is affecting shellfish populations, and the warmer ocean waters are causing bleaching of coral. Are there locations that will benefit from increased warmth? Of course – parts of Canada will see increased crop yields, likewise for Siberia. But the overall result is more adverse than positive.

What does a person’s career have to do with science? Is it your opinion that once a person chooses a career then that makes them unsuited or incapable of working in other areas of science?

So you desire to be relegated to one career/specialty for all of your life and everyone should denigrate you and belittle your attempts in other knowledge spheres?

Two points – first, since posters on this and other skeptic sites see fit to continuously attack the credibility and motives and scientists who work in this space (they’re in it for the money, or for prestige), isn’t it only fair to question the motives of those who are in industries that clearly stand to lose should action be taken on CAGW? If you think someone who spent 40 years in the coal industry has purely neutral, unbiased motives, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Secondly, I didn’t say that people can’t change careers or have interests. But the same people who say that the atmospheric sciences are incredibly complicated, and need to be studied more, don’t seem to have a problem in accepting at face value posts like the above, which provide no scientific basis for their conclusions. If you or someone in your family had cancer, would you weight the opinion of the mechanic or accountant next door equally with a team of oncologists you consulted?

Chris, you wrote to me, “You say ad hominem accusations of hidden ulterior competing interests. So it’s OK for readers here to continuously attack the motives of scientists (greed, prestige) but it’s not ok to raise the question of competing motives of someone who spent 40 years in the coal industry?”

Not at all Chris. I never said anything even remotely like that. The question should be raised equally on both sides, and on both sides it should occupy a step below examining the science itself. The motives of the “scientists” are no less questionable than the motives of the coal barons — and in some ways they’re even more questionable since the coal barons have to wrestle with their consciences while many of the “scientists” salve their consciences over with their belief that their fudging of the research is “in a good cause” and “will save the children” and “won’t hurt anything if it’s wrong.” In Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains I classified that subgroup of Antismokers as being “The Idealists” — and I’m sure you’ve got a fair parcel of them in the Global Warming area as well.

I’m glad to see you bring up the question of prestige however as part of the overall package of “greed.” I had done so in Brains but it’s not something I’ve seen done a whole lot elsewhere and it’s important: these people have their entire careers wrapped up in their crusades. It’s not just their mortgages on the line but their entire reputations: The greed for glory can be as strong as the greed for gold.

“Chris says:
October 2, 2012 at 10:56 pmatheok says:
October 2, 2012 at 1:48 pm
What does a person’s career have to do with science? Is it your opinion that once a person chooses a career then that makes them unsuited or incapable of working in other areas of science?
So you desire to be relegated to one career/specialty for all of your life and everyone should denigrate you and belittle your attempts in other knowledge spheres?

Two points – first, since posters on this and other skeptic sites see fit to continuously attack the credibility and motives and scientists who work in this space Blatant falsehood and smear, ATK(they’re in it for the money, or for prestige), isn’t it only fair to question the motives of those who are in industries that clearly stand to lose should action be taken on CAGW? If you think someone who spent 40 years in the coal industry has purely neutral, unbiased motives, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
Secondly, I didn’t say that people can’t change careers or have interests. But the same people who say that the atmospheric sciences are incredibly complicated, and need to be studied more, don’t seem to have a problem in accepting at face value posts like the above, which provide no scientific basis for their conclusions. If you or someone in your family had cancer, would you weight the opinion of the mechanic or accountant next door equally with a team of oncologists you consulted?”

So your tactic is to smear, belittle, falsely accuse and then try for a different direction. Give it up, you’re caught in the act.

This blog, courtesy of Anthony Watts who was very similarly smeared in a recent PBS interview commentary, publishes many different viewpoints. Preferably, posters back up their article with references to science, but not necessarily.

Now, you have taken umbrage both with the article over unspecified points. You do take umbrage with some of us commenters and you toss off several items as ‘invented’, even though the author never questioned them directly. You’ve created different discussion points so you can continue to be difficult.

The statement, “…The proposition that this mild warming, if it occurs, would be “catastrophic” is so laughable that they had to invent “positive feedbacks” to multiply this scare to maybe six degrees in a century…” stands alone and you don’t like it. OK, tough! Get over it.

Nowhere are the catastrophic predictions of AGW proven. Instead we are asked to accept the opinions of experts who used models and words meaning maybe in their predictions. Viv is not required to prove the normal! Scientists, using that term loosely, are supposed to prove their projections! Show us where the scientists you apparently approve of, have absolutely proved a disaster because of climate!?

Meanwhile, in the world of geology where geologists look at 4+ billion years or physical science evidence, there are no identified previous episodes of ‘catastrophic warming’, caused by climate or CO2; asteroids maybe. Nor can they identify any local sites of catastrophes because of CO2 caused warming.

We’re still asking those climate scientists who refuse to share all details of their work and research for definitive proof. Instead they wail about our grandkids, disaster, oceans, shrinking fish and whatever just so it gets them more money.

So Chris, put up or shut up. Deal your hidden agenda cards and provide real proof that Viv is wrong. Real proof as mentioned above is definitive and replicated. Replicated means by anyone whose desires to try the experiment, not just certain ‘special’ friends.

As for your ‘special scientist’ versus a general mechanic or accountant, my answer is YES. That is, yes, if the person next door just spent several years of their own time studying the topic in depth and the oncologist you referred is inexperienced and earns money on the side selling ‘the end of man cancer catastrophe’ rubbish.

Viv’s points are valid because? What, just because you agree that makes them valid? So let me understand – CAGW scientific papers involving millions of data points and sophisticated models need to be cross checked and picked apart (and I’m fine with that) before they can be accepted as valid, but broad statements such as “the emerging evidence, and Earth’s past history, show that feedbacks are negative – the vast oceans tend to stabilise warming temperatures so that even the two degree forecast is probably excessive” do not require supporting documentation and thus can be accepted at face value?

Regarding the 18%/decade decline in land-based snow in the Arctic regions, and the impact that will have on river flow, drier conditions in the summer in forests, and on weather experienced in US (less cooling effect in the summertime).

Search on this, you’ll find it on Aug 6th on this site: “The propaganda/lies from the Climate Liars is becoming more outlandish and desperate each day. They’ve given up the pretext of even doing phoney science, now it’s science fiction science.” So your statement is a falsehood, these kind of comments appear with regularity.

You said: “So your tactic is to smear, belittle, falsely accuse and then try for a different direction..” Questioning whether a guest poster who spent 40 years in the coal industry is unbiased is smearing?

You said: “Now, you have taken umbrage both with the article over unspecified points.” No, not unspecified points, I was very specific. To repeat, his comments that warmth is good, moisture is good, CO2 is good, cold is bad.

You said, in BOLD: “Viv is not required to prove the normal!” Once again, that is false – unless a warming planet is the normal. Viv is saying that an increasingly warm and moist world is a good thing, and that the impact of that on the planet will be positive, not negative. You apparently are willing to accept his predictions without any evidence, that’s your perogative.

You said: “You’ve created different discussion points so you can continue to be difficult.” I had 2 main points – 1) that if it’s ok to challenge the bias of climate scientists (which happens all the time here), it should be ok to challenge the bias of a 40 year coal industry employee. 2) that he didn’t back up his assertions with any substantive facts. That’s it. Is that too much for you?

You said: “So Chris, put up or shut up. Deal your hidden agenda cards and provide real proof that Viv is wrong.” I did this already when I gave multiple examples on 2 Oct at 10:25pm, if you want papers, look at my reply to D. Boehm above.

Regarding the neighbor question, you said: “YES. That is, yes, if the person next door just spent several years of their own time studying the topic in depth and the oncologist you referred is inexperienced and earns money on the side selling ‘the end of man cancer catastrophe’ rubbish.”

But I didn’t say that, did I? Just a mechanic – unless you have proof that guest posters like Viv have been studying climate science for years. Nice touch on making the oncologist inexperienced – except that I said a team, not an individual. Oh, and explain to me how the scientists earn money on the side. I am working now with a university (in Singapore, where I live) on a research area unrelated to climate science, the principal researcher (a professor in Mechanical Engineering) is NOT allowed to augment his professor’s salary in any way from the grant. All monies go to grad students or equipment. I have researched the grant system in the US, where I used to live. It is essentially the same. So exactly how are these climate scientists profiting from their grants?

Who said that warming is “always” better? We are talking global warming here, not some cherry-picked location that suits your argument.

Your comments reek of increasing desperation. The reason is clear: the planet itself is deconstructing your alarmist beliefs. That is not easy to take, is it? The whole CO2=CAGW conjecture is going down in flames because the ultimate Authority — Planet Earth — is falsifying that nonsense.

Who should we believe? Planet Earth, or your false alarmist narrative?

Um, Viv did. His guest post was the topic we were discussing, remember? I won’t bother to quote any of his statements, it’s clear you don’t apply any kind of critical analysis to anti-CAGW articles.

You say my comments reek of desperation. No, I continue to post actual studies, while you, thus far, have posted 0 links to studies to support your position. A sign of desperation, or weak argumentative skills, is to assert that things are true without supporting documentation – something which you do time and time again.

As far as Planet Earth falsifying CO2=CAGW, that’s pretty amusing after we just experienced a dramatic reduction the Arctic Sea ice extent – a figure even below what the readers of WUWT predicted.

Give up on the Arctic sea ice. The IPCC predicted that both poles would lose ice. Since the Antarctic is still gaining ice (and is now at a record high), the IPCC’s prediction has been falsified. It was wrong. The alarmist crowd loses again.

Let’s see now, how many alarmist predictions have come to pass… um, that would be none.

Once again, you ignore specific postings that I have made on the impact of global warming. What about the paper on the increase in temperature in the Frasier River and the associated impact on salmon mortality? No response? This is one of the “alarmist” predictions, and it has come true.

As far as the Arctic and Antarctic, first, the Arctic sea ice extent has declined by 50% over the last 40 years, compared to 1% gain per decade for the Antarctic. Not exactly similar rates of loss/gain. Second, if you read the IPCC report and other scientific studies on Antarctica, it notes that because Antarctica is a large land mass surrounded by sea, and is much colder than the Arctic, it may experience some slight increase in size due to increased precipitation due to slightly warmer water. But in the long run – not now, but 25-50 years from now – the trend will be downward, with an expectation of loss of up to 1/3 of the ice mass.

Jimbo says: ”Thanks! Now I know that Greenland is in the Mediterranean. Did I say civilizations and the Mediterranean? Take you time to read what I said next time”

Roman times / roman empire was around the Mediterranean.. Talking about Greenland; you need to learn the truth, not your pagan believes, which you are still pushing. Here is about your Greenland; the correct version, Don;t be scared from some reality, it will help you better to understand why the Warmist don’t take the Skeptics seriously; even though the Warmist cannot have a single solid proof of GLOBAL warming; because there isn’t such a thing -Greenland”.